I. . . I hate to post one of those uber-lengthy "dissected into quoted sections" post, but I think this one calls for one.
alphanubilus wrote:A fair comparison is Star Wars Episodes I, II, III... Most Star Wars fans went to see these movies, of which made George tons of money, and while i am sure there are dire hard fans who still think the Jar Jar Binks was some sort of Messiah, most will argue that these films were heavily flawed. I think they verge on the idea of lunacy, to be honest, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying the few segments of Jedi arss kicking.
What you're leaving out is the fact that Lucas originally began with VI, V and IV, which are absolute masterpieces of cinematography, even by today's standards. The prequels were more of a fan service -- people had been
asking for the prequels for decades. Then when the prequels
were finally made, everybody found out why Lucas began at
A New Hope and the fanbase absolutely turned on him.
Cujo coms to mind... It's page 100 before you get to the actual plot of the book. The first 100 pages are about marital issues.
The reason being because Stephen King tries to portray his characters as. . . You know,
characters. He tries to make you like the guy right before he kills him.
Pet Sematary was like that in the beginning too. The zombie cat stuff didn't begin as soon as Lou and his family arrive in Ludlow -- they get an introduction first from their neighbor, a tour of the actual pet cemetery, a warning about the road on which they live, and yes, even some family angst, all of which are integral and serve as the foundation for the plot about to develop (Rachel's sister Zelda doesn't come out of nowhere -- we get a hint that Rachel has some serious baggage first). It also wasn't until some 50-100 pages in that King finally introduces Victor Pascow, and even then the supernatural elements do not come into play immediately.
Then when the supernatural elements
do come into play, everything he had revealed before then suffices as either the foundation for its revelation, or affects the development of it. Those introductory chapters might not be interesting, but they are important, and as soon as the supernatural becomes involved, you're going to know damn well that all that material you were trudging through in the beginning is going to play a significant part in how the story develops.
Imagine if King had written
Dreamcatcher without ever significantly delving into the four friends' childhoods with Duddits first. Would have left a pretty significant gap in the plot I think.
It is amazing to me that people will gripe constantly about Twilight, including the movie, and yet they will readily go see Underworld, of which has one of the worse stories to ever be concieved and only got worse with the second movie. The third movie was okay, but as you never REALLY get to know the characters other than the fact that Sonya and Lucian are suppose to be in love, their plight becomes lost in the blood and gore. Underworld series is one of the most emotionless sagas too date. Yet people like it.
Underworld has nothing to do with literacy.
Underworld was an attempt to replicate the success of the original
Blade movie with a vampire-related action flick. The plot of
Underworld was indeed very shallow, on par with the
Terminator series I would say. Of course, in spite of the latter's equally shallow plot,
T-2: Judgment Day is still considered a masterpiece. . . Because it had scenes
like this in it. Some good quality FX, well-scripted action scenes and some damn good acting by Linda Hamilton were all it took .
Underworld didn't have good writing, but nobody ever made the claim that it did.
Also note... Titanic was a HORRIBLE movie. Successfull yes, good... NO... 3 hours of the most cliched love story to ever be concieved and just a little bit of boat sinking... Half way through I forgot what the movie was about.
Michael Bay tried to rekindle the Titanic craze with... Pearl Harbor, and I equally despised that movie. Thank God it was an epic fail...The only redeaming factor, was Kate Beckinsale, but then again... she IS a goddess.
Titanic's faults were the most readily evident features, but still, eleven Oscars are hard to argue with.
Pearl Harbor doesn't even begin to compare to it, however, and I can sum up why with two simple words: Michael Bay.
James Cameron's pre-
Titanic works:
The Terminator / T-2 +
Aliens +
The Abyss =
Michael Bay's pre-
Pearl Harbor works:
Bad Boys +
Mystery Men +
Coyote Ugly =
Titanic came to be when James Cameron had a vision.
Pearl Harbor came to be when Michael Bay decided he wanted a
Titanic on his resume too.
Michael Bay was making a desperate grab at James Cameron's stature (and threw a tantrum when he didn't get it) much the same way Stephanie Meyer pouts and whines because nobody with a quarter of a brain is buying into her claims at being on par with Stephen King.
Oh, and one more thing: Just because
Twilight has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever does not mean it's wrong to like it. . . Just as long as you
acknowledge that it has no redeeming qualities. I mean. . . Some of my favorite movies include
Tank Girl and
Mars Attacks!, but I will readily acknowledge the fact that they are both absolutely horrible movies. I love
The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy too, and when you get down to it, that's a pretty horrible book too.
It's okay to like a bad book or a bad movie, but you can't pretend the fact that you like it is proof enough that it isn't bad. By in large, Stephanie Meyer and her fans are not capable of recognizing this.